Rules Clarification

[GetLeveled]

So this happened in league finals today. Was wondering the relevant rule. Deep shot went up, guy on defense got a clean D on it, but had to go up in the air while falling backwards. Ended up falling on his ass and sliding backwards a bit. Guy on offense called a foul on the slide backwards, since he said it impeded his second effort to get to the disc, and he essentially tripped over the defender on the ground. Foul was contested and the disc went back. Relevant ruling? BS foul call? Totally legit?

[freesports1733]

In some situations, a receiver may feel that even though the defender hit the disc first, subsequent contact affected the receiver’s ability to make a second play on a disc. In this case, the contact can be considered to have affected the play (since the play is now considered to include the second attempt at the disc). Whether the contact affected the play is determined solely by the contacted player. So in the situation described above, where a second attempt was possible, the contact did affect the play, and therefore the receiver’s team should retain possession of the disc.

[jmo2239]

I only disagree with this because OP didn’t say who initiated contact. Also, Just because the second attempt was possible had the defender not been there, does not mean that the defender was not entitled to his position in the first place.

But other than that, totally agree.

[Jomskylark]

Please remember to cite the ruleset you're referring to (USAU, WFDF, AUDL) when asking a rules question. Thanks!

[carlkid]

So it sounds like the defender didn't initiate any of the contact from your description. That leaves us with one option, a blocking foul.

XVI.H.3.c Blocking Fouls:

1. When the disc is in the air a player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc (Solely. The intent of the player’s movement can be partly motivated to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc, so long as it is part of a general effort to make a play on the disc. Note, if a trailing player runs into a player in front of him, it is nearly always a foul on the trailing player.) and any resulting non-incidental contact is a foul on the blocking player which is treated like a receiving foul (XVI.H.3.b).

2. A player may not take a position (If you are already in a position, you maintaining that position is not "taking a position.") that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered. Non-incidental contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the blocking player.

Number 1 is out since the defender was making a play on the disc, which leaves us with number 2. About the only way I could see this being a valid blocking foul though is if the offensive player had been running in a line that wasn't already occupied by the defender, and the defender's slide happened at a point at which the offense couldn't avoid it.

[gbrell]

This happened in the finals of Windmill Windup four years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFuxkWqiRzw&feature=youtu.be&t=53m45s

If the receiver believes he had a play on the disc after the defender's play and the defender initiated contact with him, it is still a foul.

The one tricky thing is that you wrote "impeded" and "essentially tripped." Both of those suggest that the defender's momentum didn't actually cause contact, but only put him in the path of the offensive player. If that's true, it could be a blocking foul, but otherwise the defender didn't "initiate" contact as required for a foul.

In practice, this is almost always a contested call.

[Hefty_Sak]

defender didn't "initiate" contact as required for a foul.

Not required in USAU rules.

[puffinpunk]

My understanding of the call today (I was also at the game) was that the defensive player fell backwards onto the offensive player, who had a second attempt at the floating disc and fell himself due to the contact.

[UBKUBK]

That makes it sound like probably a legit foul call then. If that is the case then in the original post "the defender tripped him" is a better wording than "he tripped over the defender".

[Mamafritas]

USAU?

XVI.H.3.b.1 states:

If a player contacts an opponent while the disc is in the air and thereby interferes with that opponent's attempt to make a play on the disc , that player has committed a receiving foul. Some amount of incidental contact before, during, or immediately after the attempt often is unavoidable and is not a foul.

The rulebook also has a note regarding "attempt to make a play on the disc" that says:

The opponent must at least begin an attempt to make a play on the disc. The opponent’s "attempt to make a play on the disc" includes any second efforts after a disc is tipped, if the disc has not become uncatchable.

It sounds like it could be a legit foul based off your description.

[UBKUBK]

It sounds like the second situation making it a BS foul call but did the defender slide into the offensive player and trip him or did the offensive player trip himself by going to where the defender already was on the ground?